Peterson Toscano reports Nathan Bell, associate director of Love In Action, has been terminated by the ministry. Peterson has extensive contacts associated (past and present) with LIA. Bob Painter, former participant and staffer, was among 195 recipients of a mass email from Bell announcing the termination and forwarded it to Peterson.
Good Morning,
I am writing to communicate a couple of important things. First, thanks to all of you for your support of me throughout my years at Love in Action. Unfortunately I have been terminated from my position after 8 years of cooperative work. It is important for me that you know his termination was not over a moral failure on my part – nor over any negligence of my responsibilities.
I solicit your prayers for me and for the ministry as we walk through a transition season.
I appreciate your support of me over the years. I hope to remain in contact with you and to continue working with you as God leads and directs.
Have a blessed day.
Nathan C. Bell
I know nothing about this guy. But you can clearly see the hurt he’s going through and the confusion about being terminated without what he sees as a justifiable cause.
I wish him best at this very difficult time of year and hope that God directs him to a place where he can both find peace and and come to better know himself and his God.
This messages suggests that perhaps LIA is either loosing clients, funding, or cohesian. I cannot say that I’m sorry about that. But I do wish that they had instead transformed themselves from a tool for attempted reorientaition to a tool for reconciliation. I wish them a growing understanding in the upcoming year of God’s ability to love people the way he created them.
I thought, reading the headline, that John Smid had terminated Nathan Bell – with extreme prejudice.
Also, it’s good to remember that organizations and people in the religious right often say one thing (such as “I was not terminated due to a moral failure,”) when the truth is the exact opposite. Perhaps time will reveal one way or the other in this case.
Bell identifies as a heterosexual man who, since age 14, has been (to varying degrees) at war against the honesty and openness of his same-sex-attracted father. His online testimony suffers from a mix of self-righteous judgment and an avoidance of the reality that his father was not sexually attracted to women.
At some point prior to the divorce, long before the kids were told, Bell’s parents likely faced a key decision: Whether it was feasible to remain in a marriage that, among other potential problems, had failed sexually. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with choosing to stay married — but it’s the marital partners’ decision, not Bell’s. And Bell’s testimony fails to acknowledge his parents’ decision — instead, he pretends that his father’s homosexuality is a temporary compulsion.
The father showed great discretion and respect for the mother when he withheld discussion of his orientation until the kids grew older. But Bell’s unstated position seems to be one of ongoing denial: He pretends that his father can simply walk away from same-sex attraction. But walk toward what? Bell does not say.
Could Bell’s father change his own sexual orientation? Unlikely, but possible — yet despite Bell’s high expectations, his testimony offers his father no practical, explicit means to change his orientation. His demand is rhetorical and ideological — not practical.
According to LIA’s application form (Word document), clients pay $750 per week for live-in group therapy, $2,800 per month, $7,000 for three months — more than sufficient for LIA to obtain licensing and hire accredited experts in psychiatry or psychotherapy. But despite a lot of pseudo-clinical mumbo-jumbo on its web site, LIA refuses to hire licensed staff with professional degrees in therapy. When Tennessee health officials curtailed LIA’s unlicensed live-in programs, LIA’s defense was that “faith” exempts it from public-health accountability. This defense fueled a public perception that LIA resembled a cult.
Bell was associate director of LIA’s residential program. This suggests to me that his job simply became redundant as the live-in program withered due to the decisions of LIA leadership.
I believe that Bell and likeminded LIA staffers do suffer from a “moral failure” — actually, several of them: denial, dishonesty, inflexibility, self-pride, and intentional ignorance. If Bell is unaware of this moral failure, it is because, like many antigay relativists, he has redefined morality on his own terms.
If I were a wag, I might suggest that maybe now Bell might be induced to get an honest job. But I’m not a wag.
/tic
US$750 per week for group residence in a concentration camp? I’d be interested in knowing what their profit was.
Nathan Bell’s testimony is sad and revealing. Here’s an angry boy determined to control his father. And when his father doesn’t submit to Nathan’s demands (or God’s demands as Nathan no doubt would put it) little Nathan cuts him off.
Timothy, Bell is not a boy. From the LIA web site, Bell graduated from University in 1996. Working backwards, he is probably in his late 20s or maybe early 30s. That is not a boy. It is not even a young man (an adolescent). He is a man. Don’t trivialize it.
According to the staff profiles cited by Raj, Bell earned a B.A. from U-Minnesota in 1996 and master’s degree in counseling from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in 2003. Several LIA staffers have similar sub-doctorate counseling degrees that are well suited to social work, not LIA’s chosen approach of group psychotherapy. None has a Ph.D in a therapeutic field, and only one is a licensed counselor — for alcohol and drug addiction.
Bell had been on staff at LIA since 1997, just one year after earning his B.A. This suggests to me that Bell has little real-world experience in counseling aside from LIA’s live-in behavior-modification program.
For all his training under Falwell, Bell apparently gained only a limited understanding of marriage and family. But that was just two years ago; one can hope he will eventually improve and apply his listening skills, which are basic to the field of counseling.
Is Liberty University even an accredited university?
Rob said:
Is Liberty University even an accredited university?
It would appear so:
https://www.liberty.edu/administration/index.cfm?PID=284
David
David is correct that Liberty U is accredited, but that is only one step. One might seriously ask the criteria under which the accrediting agencies award accreditation. I don’t know, and I’ve never heard of the accrediting agencies cited on David’s web page.
Liberty is accredited by SACS, an accreditation my college, Trinity University (a fairly reputable liberal arts school here in Texas) also holds. My school holds several other accreditations in addition to this, though.
Bell is the kind of person that reveals how groups like LIA take advantage of someone who could easily be angry at a gay person.
LIA, FOTF is rife with ex spouses or children of gays and lesbians.
It’s just that much easier to exploit whatever bitterness or feelings of betrayal these people would feel.
And harbor it forever.
All the blame of course, can go to the homosexual family member. Who isn’t necessarily there to defend themselves.
And the rest would be homosexuals there to not be gay and have to sit among angry heteros.
They would have little choice but to denounce their orientation.
What a racket.
It’s got no downside if everyone bears all this anger or conceit about homosexuality.
However, look what happens to them when challenged by those onto their game or those who didn’t complete their conversion to it’s final degree (whatever THAT is supposed to be.)
I don’t think I’ve contacted an ex gay yet who isn’t insufferably self congratulating. Like they cured cancer (which would be a more worthwhile pursuit) or something.
Which begs the point: if homosexuality is a condition which doesn’t deserve respect or consideration with equal standards, I can say that just being (or turning) heterosexual doesn’t deserve any back patting and self righteous hectoring.
Moving towards the hetero side is much ado about NOTHING especially skillful or profoundly wonderful.
So you’re now straight….NOW WHAT?
They don’t give out medals for it, and a whole lot of other people are straight too.
Lots of people are religious and there’s no medals and trumpets for that either.
Men like Alan Keyes and this Bell guy (among others) use their gay family members to throw a pity party for themselves.
I’m not sorry for the demise of programs like LIA.
They are an archaic program. They ignore, deny or lie about what homosexuality is or does.
And considering their cost, should know better.
And if they DID know better, and wanted others to as well-LIA wouldn’t exist.
You all are delusional. I know Bell and the situation. He’s not perfect (are you?), but he is a man of character and integrity. Claiming that he is “anti-gay” is about the farthest thing from reality. But of course you wouldn’t take the time to get to know him before you judge him. Shame on you. Enough said.
Jat,
Thanks for attempting to provide an alternative viewpoint. If you have factual information to substantiate your perspective on Nathan Bell, you are more than welcome to provide it.
In my opinion, Bell’s “testimony” was patronizing and sanctimonious. I am sure Bell has character and integrity — but so does his father, and a reader wouldn’t know that from reading Bell’s remarks.
If you have information to demonstrate that Bell supports his father’s — and his partner’s — equal opportunity for employment, housing, and government services, I invite you to provide it.
If Bell supports discrimination in housing, employment, or government services, or if he supports so-called sodomy laws, then he is by definition antigay.
Finally, Jat, when you call anyone who disagrees with you “delusional,” that is a poor indication of character and integrity on your part. I believe your credibility would be improved if you were willing to defend Bell publicly, rather than anonymously, and if you were willing to discuss your objections to this page point-by-point, rather than with sweeping insults.
I encourage you to get to know us, before you judge us. Achhem.
Let’s see … after 3-1/2 months at LIA, I was “terminated” by Bell for “being truthful” but was called a liar. I was literally thrown out into the street with no car, no money, no job and no viable place to live. Fortunately, God provided and I am thankful. Unfortunately, my wife of 22-years believed Bell rather than me and divorced me. I still anguish over the sordid treatment I received and the impact on my life and marriage. I was not alone. In a span of 60 days, I was witness to three (3) dismissals … I was the third client ejected from the program. I ask you … What would Jesus do? While I wish Nathan the best in his ministry career, I am thankful God intervened and placed him somewhere else. I do not recommend LIA to anyone considering the program. There are better alternatives that are truly Christ-centered and practice true “LOVE” in action.
I was a client there from March to May of 2003. Nathan Bell was my counselor, and he was terrible! He almost damaged my relationship with my parents, and hurt me so badly when I was there. I reported him to Exodus International, the ministry’s “boss.” It took the Israelites 400 years of crying to the Lord before he took them out of slavery. It looks like my prayer has been answered: Nathan Bell was terminated 2 and a half years later. Thank you Lord for giving me justice and vindication! Amen!
For those of you that were not at LIA, you have no idea what hell we went through. Nathan Bell was, and still is, an “Ever-Straight” man who had so much anger towards his gay father, that he was NOT able to help others like myself in the ministry. He did more damage to me, and hurt me even more emotionally. Our counseling sessions never went well, and it seemed that he would take his anger out on me that he had towards his father. I am glad he was terminated. My prayer was finally answered.
Now, John Smid is different. I felt more love and compassion from him since he use to be in the homosexual lifetstyle. He understood my hurts, lusts, etc. The only thing that did bother me about him was he seemed to think, and still does, that this ministry is the “cure” for homosexuality. Some people can change, and others cannot. I have not been able to change my attraction towards men, but also do not live the homosexual lifestyle as well. I do not support the homosexual community, nor do I feel that most “Ex-Gay” ministries work. I feel they only work for certain people. People that use to be in the lifestyle are the ones that need to be the counselors at these ministries. Nathan Bell, an “Ever-Straight,” was not a healer. He was a destroyer.
I know I will receive support and criticism on both sides. I do know this: the homosexual life leads to destruction, and is not Biblical. On the other hand, never let any Ex-Gay Ministry destroy your human character. If you feel you are being violated as a human being, get out of that ministry no matter what circumstances you may face from friends or family. God Bless.
So if I understand you Eric, you’re very concerned that no one generalize people who work at ex-gay ministries, but you have no problem generalizing a fictitious “homosexual lifestyle”?
It may be residual ex-gay programming, but are you able to accept that there simply is no “the homosexual lifestyle”? Much like straight people, LGBT people can have lifestyles that are highly destructive, highly constructive (yes, even when we’re not being celibate) and everything in between. Here’s hoping one day you can shake off the rest of the negative influences of places like LIA.
Eric wrote:
I know I will receive support and criticism on both sides. I do know this: the homosexual life leads to destruction, and is not Biblical.
I live the homosexual lifestyle? What is the homosexual lifestyle anyway? Going to work five days a week? Paying bills? Cooking dinner? What? I’m no different than the average hetero joe out there. This “lifestyle” the conservatives talk about is nothing more than a way to scare people into believing that gay people are nothing more than a walking sexual hormone with the voracious appetite for recreational drugs, raping children, and to spread, what they believe is, the homosexual agenda. When I talk to straight friends of mine that have sex with multiple partners I don’t say, “you live the heterosexual lifestyle”. There is no such thing. Just as there is no such thing as the “gay lifestyle”.
Besides, what is the homosexual agenda anyway? *scratches head*
I will answer your questions. When I refer to the “Homosexual Lifestyle,” I am referrring to people that have partners, and have nothing wrong with living in a same-sex relationship. These people can also be involved in sexual orgies, pride festivals, etc. People like myself have same-sex attraction, but do not live in the “lifestyle.” So yes, there is a homosexual lifestyle. I do not support the homosexual agenda, but also do not support “Ex-Gay” Ministries that damage people.
Now, straight people can be immoral as well. I am quite aware of this. As a person that works in the medical profession, I see a great number of people that have their illness’ due to a sinful lifestyle. We are all sinners in the eyes of the Lord, but if we repent and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are saved. I work in the music profession as well. I am a classical organist.
Personally, I do not feel the same-sex attraction goes away. On the other hand, it does not give someone the right to be in the homosexual lifetsyle. I am not perfect. I have had my slip-ups in the past. I will admit that. But, I have to move on, and keep focsuing on the Lord. I have to remember that there is an enternal home for me in Heaven where there will be no more crying, illness, sexual immorality, pain, anger, etc.
If any of you would like to talk with me on the phone about this, you may call me. You may e-mail me, and I can give you my cell number. I just ask that you do not be rude, or hateful. We must all be polite to each other when making these comments. Have a blessed day, and God Bless.
Eric,
I think you seem to conflating a whole bunch of unrelated items to come up with a “homosexual lifestyle”. But none of your examples are consistent.
I have a heterosexual couple as friends who attend pride parades and spend much of their social life among gay people. They met at a gay bar, actually, through gay friends. Are they living a homosexual lifestyle?
I have a friend from church who is gay and socializes in gay settings but who believes that sexual contact is sinful so he remains celibate. Is he living a homosexual lifestyle?
I have many gay friends who are in long-term committed monogamous relationships and who would be appalled at the idea of being involved in a sexual orgy. Some socialize in gay settings, some spend almost all their time among heterosexual couples. Are they living a homosexual lifestyle?
I think perhaps it might be useful for you to think about exactly what it is that you find unacceptable. If it is promiscuity, any sexual contact, simply socializing, being accepting of one’s orientation, or some other factor that you think is required for a “homosexual lifestyle”?
In the meanwhile, I wish you well in your quest to be what you believe that God wants you to be. If you don’t believe that you are allowed sexual expression – in any circumstances – then I encourage you in your strive for celibacy. Your journey is your own and I can’t tell you how to walk it.
Oh, and yes there is a “homosexual agenda”. It is this:
That is the political agenda. That is, we believe, non negotiable in any country that believes that all citizens are created equal.
There is also a social agenda but it’s not as easily defined. Vaguely, it goes like this
That is, of course, a matter of education, encouragement, experience, modeling, and other social pressure. We do not insist that people change their opinions or views – but we hope they do.
I’m sorry that you cannot support the idea of equal treatment to all. Perhaps some day you will be able to.
When I refer to the “Homosexual Lifestyle,” I am referrring to people that have partners, and have nothing wrong with living in a same-sex relationship. These people can also be involved in sexual orgies, pride festivals, etc. People like myself have same-sex attraction, but do not live in the “lifestyle.” So yes, there is a homosexual lifestyle.
I’m sorry, but you’ve confused me. Are you saying that gay couples also participate in sexual orgies, in which case you are making baseless generalizations, or are you referring to anyone with a same-sex partner, and who could be monogamous or into weekly orgies, in which case you’ve broadened the definition of lifestyle so as to be meaningless? Or are you conflating the term lifestyle with the viewpoint of thinking that being gay is okay?
You are not understanding me. I am saying that homosexuality is wrong. I am a Christian, and stick to that my friend. If you would like to talk about it on the phone, you may call me. It is hard to explain here. God Bless
We are not going to agree on this issue folks. The matter on this discussion has ended. God Bless.
We are not going to agree on this issue folks. The matter on this discussion has ended. God Bless.
Agreement is not always necessary for understanding, Eric. Timothy (who is a Christian) seems to have been rather kind and patient in his discussion with you, but the effort must come from both sides. Closing your discussion in a huff then ending with “God Bless” is not the best way to achieve understanding, and certainly doesn’t provide a good example for those who already have a bad impression of Christians.
As to your requests for people to phone you, that isn’t appropriate. The purpose of this site is to have transparent, public discussion in which others can participate. This also benefits those who may come by in the future. A private phone conversation would not serve these goals.
It seems you are very rude, David.I can have people call me if I want, SIR. Who are you to question what I do? I do give Timothy credit for being professional and polite to me. It seems you are not. I am not talking about this anymore. I am a conservative Christian, NOT liberal.
There is a recurrent theme on this site among posts from some ex-gay individuals exhorting those of us who do not share their beliefs to adopt the ex-gay path. Yet, many of them admit that they are still attracted to members of the same sex and hoping eventually for change. Their own descriptions of what they put themselves through to follow their chosen path doesn’t appear the least bit attractive.
Coming out of the closet and accepting who I was lifted a great weight off my shoulders, and I can’t imagine voluntarily trying to go back to pretending to be something that I am not. It is just too much work. Besides, I would still know who I am regardless of what I did to try and hide the fact that I am gay from others. And guess what, if a person actually believes in God, then they can’t possibly hope to fool God either. So, what’s the point?
Am I the only one confused over how anyone can “call him” if he didn’t supply a phone number? for that matter, he’s giving people permission to email him without an email address, etc.
Although I do not mean to dwell much on this further, assuming Eric is not in fact a troll or some sort of ex-gay puppet seeking converts I think we missed a valuable moment for some questions regarding this counselor, I’d have been more than a little interested if Eric had chosen to expand even beyond “For those of you that were not at LIA, you have no idea what hell we went through. Nathan Bell was, and still is, an “Ever-Straight” man who had so much anger towards his gay father, that he was NOT able to help others like myself in the ministry. He did more damage to me, and hurt me even more emotionally. Our counseling sessions never went well, and it seemed that he would take his anger out on me that he had towards his father. I am glad he was terminated. My prayer was finally answered.”
for that matter I found it interesting that he spoke of John Smid in such glowing terms except that Smid believes he can cure gay people. I can appreciate that Eric felt a connection with Smid, and that he felt that Smid was well intentioned (even if misguided) but I’d nonetheless be fascinated to learn what was so compelling about him, perhaps an anecdote or two about Smid and for that matter about Bell.
I further find it curious how quickly Eric went from “I know I will receive support and criticism on both sides. I do know this: the homosexual life leads to destruction, and is not Biblical. On the other hand, never let any Ex-Gay Ministry destroy your human character. If you feel you are being violated as a human being, get out of that ministry no matter what circumstances you may face from friends or family. God Bless.” to attacking people who were asking him to examine his core beliefs. They didn’t judge him or tell him he couldn’t believe what he believes, they asked him questions to hopefully make him think.
Really, it is this final point that troubles me. It seems that Eric did not come here benignly and with the mere attempt to offer syncopatic explanations about how “bad” a counselor Bell was, it seems to me he came here believing 1) Gays are immoral people 2) Gays fit the stereotypes ministries like LIA portray them as 3) Gays being sociable will respond if you try to befriend them 4) Gays should give up their “sinful” and “deadly” “lifestyle” and convert to Christianity 5) No gay person can be a Christian, they must be celibate if they cannot change. 6) Weirdly enough, he assumes all gays are liberals or at least seems to assume that.
I’m no expert but from what I can tell then he came here with a pretty simple agenda: Fake interest in Nathan Bell and try to minister to the poor deluded gay people.
Coming out of the closet and accepting who I was lifted a great weight off my shoulders, and I can’t imagine voluntarily trying to go back to pretending to be something that I am not. It is just too much work. Besides, I would still know who I am regardless of what I did to try and hide the fact that I am gay from others. And guess what, if a person actually believes in God, then they can’t possibly hope to fool God either. So, what’s the point?
I agree with you John. I never believed in being something I was not. I could never fool myself nor God. It simply makes no sense to fight against feelings that are simply part of who you are. There is of course a proper way to express those feelings in the context of one’s own religious beliefs. So I respect those that choose whatever path they believe is right for them. But I draw the line at making everyone drink the same “kool-aid” they did. Just because it works for them doesn’t mean its going to work for others. People have to find their own way.
As a Christian myself I never had the belief or the desire to change my sexual orientation. When I was younger, after accepting Christ, I felt guilt over my sexual orientation because I accepted the judgement of others that told me that homosexuality was a sin. But that has since changed. I’m 40 now and that was 20-22 years ago. It is God that I have faith in and not man and his imperfect judgemental attitude towards those that they deem far inferior because they somehow believe they have the monopoly on God.
It seems you are very rude, David.I can have people call me if I want, SIR. Who are you to question what I do?
I certainly wasn’t trying to be rude, but moderating the activities on this site is part of my job, and that of every author here. If you wish to solicit private phone discussion, you can do this on your own blog without fear of intervention. What goes on here must be in the open and on the record. You always have the choice not to post.
Personally, I do not feel the same-sex attraction goes away. On the other hand, it does not give someone the right to be in the homosexual lifestyle.
You have the right to live your life as you see fit, as long as doing so does not deprive someone else of the same right. You get very upset when you suspect someone of infringing on your rights, but the rationale for your very real denial of other’s rights is that you are conservative, not liberal. Anyone who knows me would tell you in a second that I am a conservative Christian, but that doesn’t help me understand your point there.
Your situation seems rather tenuous, Eric. I hope you one day you can reach a point of understanding that will allow you to treat others as you wish to be treated. It is not required that you agree with them, but if you open your mind to learning as even scripture commands, you might even find out that you are wrong occasionally (gasp!). It’s part of life and we can grow from that.
If you want to comment again, why not pick a more current thread and take a quick look through our guidelines. As long as you are civil, on topic and open to debate, you should have no problem posting here. Please do refrain from soliciting private conversations and post your comments in the open.